Re: [Rats] EAT IANA registry

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,

 

Looking at the JWT claim IANA registry [1], it is already a terrible mess of several different standards, obviously with many more coming. I guess what’s done is done, and I’ll take back my objection.

 

Thanks,

                Yaron

 

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/jwt.xhtml#claims

 

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, November 22, 2019 at 14:17
To: Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: EAT IANA registry

 

Yaron, 

Could you explain why you think that this is a good idea? 

Ciao

Hannes

 

From: RATS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:05 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Rats] EAT IANA registry

 

Unrelated to my earlier mail, I would recommend to create a separate registry for EAT claims (I suppose that implies a nested object in the JWT/CWT) rather than to overload the CWT registry. Architecturally it just doesn’t jive to have all these claims as baseline CWT claims, and process-wise, it’s much more convenient for this group to control its own namespace.

 

Sorry if this has been raised before.

 

Thanks,

                Yaron

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.